A broadly diversified global equity portfolio with a strong tilt toward United States technology growth

Report created on Jan 10, 2026

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

4/5
Broadly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

The structure is simple and equity‑only: roughly 60% in a global fund, 30% in a large US index, and 10% in a US tech fund. This creates a clear tilt toward US markets, especially technology, while still keeping broad global exposure. A balanced benchmark for a “Profile_Balanced” investor usually mixes stocks and bonds, so this setup is more growth‑oriented than that label suggests. This simplicity is a strength for ease of management. To better match a classic balanced profile, it could help to add a stabilizing component, such as lower‑volatility assets, while reducing overlapping holdings that track very similar companies.

Growth Info

Historically, the portfolio shows a strong compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.46%. CAGR is like the average yearly “speed” of growth from a starting point, smoothing out ups and downs over time. A hypothetical 10,000 EUR invested and held through the backtest would have grown very nicely compared with many broad equity benchmarks. However, there has been a max drawdown of around –33%, meaning the largest peak‑to‑trough fall was about a third of the value. That level of drop is typical for equity‑heavy setups. It’s key to remember that past returns are not a promise of future results, especially for growth‑tilted portfolios.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo simulation runs 1,000 random “what if” paths using historical patterns to estimate a range of future outcomes. Median (50th percentile) growth around 809% and an annualized simulated return of 18.69% look very optimistic, with even the 5th percentile at 152%. Monte Carlo is useful to understand variability, but it relies heavily on past volatility and returns. If markets are less favorable than history, actual results can be much lower. Treat these figures as rough scenarios, not forecasts. A practical way to use them is to ask whether you could handle results closer to the lower percentiles without panicking or needing to sell at a bad time.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

All assets are in stocks, with 100% equity and no allocation to bonds, cash, or other asset classes. Equities are typically the main long‑term growth engine, but they also carry more short‑term swings, especially during crises. Balanced benchmarks often combine stocks with steadier components to soften downturns. This allocation is well‑aligned with a growth mindset but less so with a classic “balanced” label. To improve resilience, especially for medium‑term goals, you might consider introducing some stabilizing assets and dialing down equity exposure slightly, rather than relying solely on diversification within the stock universe to manage risk.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    37%
  • Financials
    14%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    9%
  • Telecommunications
    9%
  • Industrials
    8%
  • Health Care
    8%
  • Consumer Staples
    4%
  • Energy
    3%
  • Basic Materials
    3%
  • Utilities
    2%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector exposure is strongly tilted: technology sits at about 37%, followed by financial services, consumer cyclicals, communication services, and industrials. This tech tilt is driven both by the dedicated tech ETF and the tech‑heavy nature of major indices. Tech‑heavy portfolios often do very well when innovation and growth are rewarded, but they can be hit harder when interest rates rise or when markets rotate toward more defensive areas. The remaining sectors still provide good breadth, and this aligns fairly closely with global benchmarks, just more tech‑tilted. To smooth volatility, you could gradually reduce the dedicated tech slice and let the broad funds carry your tech exposure.

Regions Info

  • North America
    79%
  • Europe Developed
    9%
  • Asia Emerging
    4%
  • Japan
    3%
  • Asia Developed
    3%
  • Australasia
    1%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Latin America
    1%

Geographically, the portfolio is dominated by North America at 79%, with smaller allocations to developed Europe, Japan, and both developed and emerging Asia. This is similar to many global market‑cap benchmarks, which are also heavily US‑weighted, so your allocation is well‑aligned with global standards. However, adding a separate US index on top of a global fund amplifies that US tilt. That can be positive if US markets continue to lead, but it increases vulnerability if they lag. Over time, you might check whether this strong US focus is intentional or if you’d prefer a more even split between regions by trimming overlapping US exposure.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    49%
  • Large-cap
    34%
  • Mid-cap
    16%
  • Small-cap
    1%

Market‑cap exposure is skewed toward mega and big companies, with around 83% in large caps and only 17% in mid and small caps. Large caps tend to be more stable, better known, and easier to trade, which suits many investors and often mirrors major benchmarks. Smaller companies can add growth potential and diversification, but they can also be more volatile and sensitive to economic cycles. This allocation is well‑balanced and aligns closely with global standards for a core equity holding. If you ever want slightly more growth and diversification, a modest increase to mid/small‑cap exposure inside broad funds can do the job without complicating the structure.

Redundant positions Info

  • iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
    Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    High correlation

The broad global ETF and the S&P 500 ETF are highly correlated, meaning they tend to move in very similar ways because they own many of the same large US names. Correlation describes how two investments move together: a value close to 1 means they rise and fall almost in sync. Highly correlated assets bring limited diversification benefit during market stress. Your current approach is still simple and effective, but there is some overlap that doesn’t reduce risk much. You could streamline by choosing one main “core” equity holding and using a smaller number of complementary funds, which can make the portfolio easier to manage and monitor.

Risk vs. return

This chart shows the Efficient Frontier, calculated using your current assets with different allocation combinations. It highlights the best balance between risk and return based on historical data. "Efficient" portfolios maximize returns for a given risk or minimize risk for a given return. Portfolios below the curve are less efficient. This is informational and not a recommendation to buy or sell any assets.

Click on the colored dots to explore allocations.

From a risk‑return angle, the portfolio can be analyzed on an Efficient Frontier, which is a curve showing the best possible trade‑off between risk and return using only your current building blocks. “Efficient” means getting the most expected return for a given level of volatility, not maximizing diversification or minimizing losses. Because the global and US ETFs are highly correlated, there may be simple reallocations—like trimming overlapping pieces or rebalancing the tech tilt—that move you closer to that efficient line. Note that any optimization uses historical patterns and cannot predict future shocks, so it should support, not replace, your personal comfort with risk.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares S&P 500 USD Information Technology Sector UCITS 0.15%
  • iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) 0.12%
  • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation 0.19%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.16%

The total ongoing cost (TER) around 0.16% per year is impressively low and firmly in line with best practices for ETF‑based portfolios. Costs work like friction: even a small reduction compounds to a noticeable difference over many years. Your portfolio’s cost level supports better long‑term performance compared with more expensive active products. This is a strong foundation you’re absolutely on the right track here. The main cost improvement left is not so much lowering TER further, but ensuring that each ETF plays a distinct role instead of paying twice for overlapping exposure that doesn’t bring extra diversification or clarity.

What next?

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

The information provided on this platform is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial or investment advice. Insightfolio does not provide investment advice, personalized recommendations, or guidance regarding the purchase, holding, or sale of financial assets. The tools and content are intended for educational purposes only and are not tailored to individual circumstances, financial needs, or objectives.

Insightfolio assumes no liability for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented. Users are solely responsible for verifying the information and making independent decisions based on their own research and careful consideration. Use of the platform should not replace consultation with qualified financial professionals.

Investments involve risks. Users should be aware that the value of investments may fluctuate and that past performance is not an indicator of future results. Investment decisions should be based on personal financial goals, risk tolerance, and independent evaluation of relevant information.

Insightfolio does not endorse or guarantee the suitability of any particular financial product, security, or strategy. Any projections, forecasts, or hypothetical scenarios presented on the platform are for illustrative purposes only and are not guarantees of future outcomes.

By accessing the services, information, or content offered by Insightfolio, users acknowledge and agree to these terms of the disclaimer. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not use our platform.

Instrument logos provided by Elbstream.

Help us improve Insightfolio

Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey